To Conquer a Peace: The War between the United States and Mexico, and: The Mexican War, 1846-1848 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS81 sion conducted themselves so as to dishonor the uniform they wore. The commission itself, of course, lacked any jurisdiction known to either civil or military law. The virulent partisanship of Assistant Judge Advocate John Bingham, Stanton's old friend from Ohio, was shameful in a man whose official position required him to present evidence of innocence as well as guilt, and to protect the rights of the defendants. Witnesses were heard and testimony admitted that would have made Sir George Jeffreys blush. As for the prisoners, they were, except for Mary Surratt, not only heavily ironed in court and out, but, at Stanton's direction, were tormented to the point of madness by having to spend weeks in their cells blinded and deafened by heavy, padded, canvas bags that were tied over their heads. Running through the whole proceedings was the assumption that the Booth conspiracy was part of a larger plot that had produced secession, and that those who had supported the latter were ipso facto guilty of participating in the former. The conspiracy psychosis thrown up by the antislavery revivals of the 1830's and used by the Republicans so effectively in the 1850's hung over the courtroom like a poisonous cloud. The trial of the Booth conspirators lit up dark recesses of the American soul and revealed some frightening deformities. It was not the best time for a weak and foolish youth to be abroad in the world, but Weichmann was, and he paid for it. So, unfortunately, did Mary Surratt. Ludwell H. Johnson, III College of William and Mary To Conquer a Peace: The War between the United States and Mexico. By John Edward Weems. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1974. Pp. 499. $12.50.) The Mexican War, 1846-1848. By K. Jack Bauer. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1974. Pp. 454. $14.95.) The task of comparative review is, I have learned, quite difficult, even for two closely related and similarly organized books. There are sufficient differences in interpretation and coverage between them to give the reviewer something to talk about, but the first thing he must ponder is why two such lengthy studies dealing with this war should appear simultaneously. Why, indeed, has there been so much writing on the Mexican War of late? Like all of America's military indulgencies, the Mexican War traditionally has attracted its share of attention from the nation's historians, not to mention the continuing apologia from Mexico's historians. But the present decade has been blessed with at least a dozen new books on this 82CIVIL WAR HISTORY conflict, and no longer does it stand in the shadow of the Civil War. A probable explanation is that we are looking to the past for a reasonable concomitant to the internal arguments which raged in the 1960's and early 1970's over the war in Viet Nam. Of all previous United States experience with foreign war, the Mexican encounter seems the most likely candidate. Such terms as "imperialism " and "moral commitment" seem to many to be interchangeable with reference to the two conflicts. It would be ridiculous to disclaim any similarities—domestic social unrest did reach a fever pitch as a result of each war—but there are too many differences in the situations to belabor the similarities or to seek lasting truths or patterns for national policy. More than just a century and simple geography separates these two foes of our military forces. It seems that the authors of these two new volumes on the Mexican War have written with the Viet Nam war in the background, but neither has let it interfere with his perspective. The books are alike in many ways, but each has its own strengths. Although Bauer's book is more of a traditional military account than Weems', this is not to say that the latter does not cover the military aspects adequately. Indeed, Weems does a fine job of presenting the various campaigns in northern and central Mexico and in California. He also adds considerably to his narrative by personifying so much of the military story, which is told from the perspective of Lt. Sam French...